SCIENCE AND SPIRITUALISM. 83 
scientific men, Tyndall, Huxley, and Carpenter, entirely dissent from the con- 
clusions and views of the three others named. Tyndall speaks of the “‘intellect- 
ual whoredoms of spiritualism.” Huxley asserts that he ‘‘should have no in- 
terest in it if it was true.” Carpenter, in a spiteful way, designates as ‘‘ fools” 
all who take the trouble to look into the matter; and oracularly declares that “the 
whole thing is nothing but waconscious cerebration.”’ All of these gentlemen, like 
the others, are Fellows of the Royal Society. 
In Germany, Zollner meets with a strong adversary in a distinguished professor 
in another university, who has written a ‘‘counterblast ” to Zollner’s book. The. 
great naturalist, Carl Vogt, dissents, and so do Haeckel, Buchner, and Rolle. In 
this country, Agassiz was incredulous of the whole thing, and so, it would appear, 
are a large majority of the notable men connected with our colleges and universi- 
ties. But it is quite impossible to learn the truth in this regard. A considerable 
number, as we personally know, express views in private which they are careful 
not to make known in public. 
From the above brief review it will be seen that “spiritualism” in this 
country and Europe is regarded, among scholars and invéstigators, with about the 
same diversity of views as! ‘‘ Darwinism.” On this continent the great names of 
Dana and Dawson, with numerous others, are counted as disbelievers in Mr. Dar- 
win’s theories; on the other hand, the young naturalists, with America’s distinguish- 
ed botanist, Professor Gray, at their head, incline to adopt his conclusions. In 
Europe about the same remarkable diversity in opinion is found among the great 
scholars and experimenters. “ 
There is hardly any theory or doctrine in science upon which learned men 
are perfectly agreed, and it is not probable that this conflict of Opinion will end 
very soon in regard t» spiritualism or Darwinism. Whilst it is true that in inves- 
tigations which so completely baffle the ordinary observer the thorough scientific 
man has a great advantage, he is still warped by prejudice, and there cling to him 
certain weaknesses common to humanity under all conditions. He is apt to 
adopt Faraday’s views: “‘ Before we proceed to consider any question involving 
principles, we should set out with clear ideas of the naturally possible and im- 
possible.” If we are to investigate nothing till we know it to be possible, the 
boundaries of the field of investigation become narrowed almost to a point. The 
notion is absurd. Nature is chary of her secrets, and we are not permitted to 
have any very clear ideas of what is zmpossible. Doubtless those who have in- 
vestigated the subject under copsideration have entered upon the work with all 
the prejudices and doubts natural to labor in such a field of mist and darkn ess, 
where tricks and fraud may be presumed to hold sway. The conclusions reach ed 
in the aggregate have been so conflicting that, so far as the world goes, nothing 
has been settled, and we do not see how it can become a clear matter of belief or 
disbelief among. all classes from any investigations that may be undertaken, no 
matter how learned or exalted the individuals may be who enter upon the labor. 
To be sure, spiritualism rests upon alleged physical occurrences and facts, and 
IV—6 
